Week 3- Executive Summary #4
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6310
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jun 5, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by KidLion3763
When it comes to the patterns of the decision making processes we need to realize that it takes root in deontological ethics which basically means that if the action is following the rules in place, then the action/decision is good. There is a need to look at these cases on an individual basis even if they share a lot of similarities so that it can be decided if those in the case are acting
in a rational or in an irrational case. In the case of taking a leave of absence, the professor is essentially going against the rules. So the committee in question is making an ethical decision because it says in their policy that a contract needs to be signed when employees take the three year leave and is acting in a rational way. The professor in question is not following the rule so he is acting irrational following the logic of deontological ethics. This was in favor of the institution rather than the individual in this case. The professor was hoping that ethically it would
favor the individual instead of the institution. Following the same decision making process, the privacy versus safety case was not as clear when making rational and irrational decisions. In this case, it ethically favored the individual rather than the institution which is her workplace. Melina was found to not be obligated to tell her medical condition, HIV, to the business. Her friend Constance was rational when she didn’t disclose her condition when she first found out. The rules stated that she did not need to because it wasn’t against the rules. This choice satisfied the individuals which were both of them. After there was a situation in which Melina’s blood was near her co-workers, Constance
felt ethically that she needed to tell her manager. This meant that she was not acting according to
the rules but rather according to her feelings and what she thought was right in this circumstance.
This meant that her manager and her workplace now know, and even though they were able to make decisions based on this, they were ethically wrong. Decisions were made for the institution
at the end of the case rather than the individual. Taking a different direction when someone's ethics came around. In the last case, the institution is being protected rather than the individual. And in this case it feels like that is happening despite ethically being wrong by not allowing a strike. There is
a favor with the people in charge and not the people whose livelihood would be affected in the long run. This is in contrast to Omega, who wants to side with the individual because she feels that ethically it is not their fault that the council has taken away money. Omega ultimately feels like while there are rules in place, it is not acting in good faith to people. This means there are things being done that are not ethically sound to at least one person in this case.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help